Parenting,Self-Control,and the Gender Gap in Heavy Drinking

Abstract

Drawing on Gottfredson and Hirschi’s theory linking parenting to deviant behavior via development of self-control, the authors assess the association between parenting styles, self-control ability, and frequent alcohol use separately for males and females. The authors’ findings from a random sample of 440 Russian respondents provide mixed support for self-control theory. Contrary to the theory, but in line with extant research, the authors failed to uncover significant gender differences in childhood upbringing or establish a strong link between parenting techniques and self-control. Furthermore, whereas parental upbringing appears to increase the likelihood of frequent drinking among men, self-control does not mediate this relationship but rather acts as an independent predictor of men’s alcohol abuse. Finally, the relatively modest contribution of self-control differences to the gender gap in frequent drinking suggests that higher alcohol consumption among men likely stems from alternative, possibly context-embedded factors.

Keywords

self-control parenting deviance Russia

The past two decades marked a period of radical transformations in the socioeconomic and political life of Russian society. The demise of the Soviet Union and the subsequent transition of Russia to a market economy paved the way for the widespread decline in the welfare of the country’s population (Klugman & Braithwaite, 1998). At the height of social crisis, Russia faced a significant increase in alcohol consumption and alcohol-related deaths (World Health Organization [WHO], 2006). On average, Russians consume approximately 15 liters of alcohol a year (Nemtsov, 2005; WHO 2004 estimate is more conservative at 11 liters a year). By contrast, the median alcohol consumption rate in the countries of European Union is 9.6 liters (WHO, 2006). Research also confirms that despite the high overall rates of alcohol use in the country, only 10% of men and 2% of women in Russia consume alcohol several times a week, and about 11% of men and 1% of women drink up to half quart of alcohol per session (McKee, 1999).

Although research has sought to identify individual risk factors associated with heavy drinking (Carlson & Vågerö, 1998), studies rarely explain why some Russians drink heavily, whereas others prefer to abstain from alcohol completely. Furthermore, no studies have investigated why alcohol consumption and binge drinking remain predominantly male phenomena among Russians (Bobak, McKee, Rose, & Marmot, 1999; Carlson & Vågerö, 1998). Most popular explanations of a gender gap in alcohol use focus on differential physiological responses to alcohol (Heath et al., 1999), the influence of gender stereotypes and expectations on men’s and women’s drinking behavior (Huselid & Cooper, 1992; Van Gundy, Schieman, Kelley, & Rebellon, 2005), and personality characteristics, such as lack of behavioral constraint, possibly more common among men (Caspi, Moffitt, Newman, & Silva, 1996). However, empirical evidence from these studies has been inconclusive and, likely, limited in generalizability due to their reliance on predominantly Western-based data.

Drawing on self-control theory (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990), which links alcohol abuse to the inability to control behavioral impulses developed as a result of ineffective parenting, we seek to explain the gender gap in heavy drinking in a random sample of 440 Russian adults. Specifically, we assess the links between parenting strategies, self-control, and alcohol use separately for males and females and investigate whether the causal mechanisms proposed by self-control theory account for the gender variation in alcohol use.

Gender and Sources of Self-Control

Integrating two long-established predictors of antisocial and unhealthy behaviors, ineffective parenting (Rollins & Thomas, 1979) and personality characteristics such as impulsivity or negative emotionality (Caspi et al., 1994; Wilson & Herrnstein, 1985), Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) argue that although all people are occasionally tempted to commit illegal acts, some successfully withstand deviant impulses and others succumb to their desires. The ability to resist deviant temptations is a marker of high self-control, whereas low self-control increases the likelihood of criminal and analogous acts such as substance abuse because it hinders one’s ability to engage in long-term calculus, making individuals particularly vulnerable to the temptations of the moment. Children develop self-control under the tutelage of parents who, if emotionally attached to their children, will successfully monitor the children’s behavior, recognize misbehavior when it occurs, and then punish or correct it. Therefore, variations in self-control, which, according to Gottfredson and Hirschi, becomes largely immutable by about age 8, can be linked to variations in parental monitoring and supervision. Large families, single-parent families, and families disrupted by divorce or blended by remarriage, they argue, have a hard time providing the level of monitoring and supervision children need to develop self-control. As Gottfredson and Hirschi note, whereas single parents often have fewer opportunities to ensure adequate supervision, stepparents may lack attachment necessary to be effective caretakers.

Drawing on the key premises of self-control theory, Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) attribute the gender gap in crime/deviance—relatively higher levels of misbehavior among men—to the lower levels of self-control men typically have. Key to this process is the differences in parenting of daughters and sons. According to Gottfredson and Hirschi, not only do parents more closely scrutinize the behavior of their daughters relative to sons but they are also quicker to punish girls’ deviance than boys’ because such behavior more squarely challenges the gender expectations of parents. Overall, then, it is differential ability to exercise self-control produced by varying child-rearing practices that should explain involvement in health-risk behaviors such as alcohol abuse across men and women. Furthermore, Gottfredson and Hirschi’s claim that their theory is general enough to perform well in any cultural setting and that all forms of deviance have the same cause suggests that self-control theory should offer a competitive explanation for the gender gap in alcohol use in Russian society.

Empirical Evidence

Whereas multiple studies confirm the association between parenting techniques and drinking problems (Barnes & Farrell, 1992; Spoth, Neppl, Goldberg-Lillehoj, Jung, & Ramisetty-Mikler, 2006; Wood, Pfefferbaum, & Arneklev, 2004), self-control is consistently linked to various types of deviance (see Pratt & Cullen, 2000, for a review of Western-based studies; see also Antonaccio & Tittle, 2008; Hwang & Akers, 2003; Vazsonyi, Clifford Wittekind, Belliston, & Van Loh, 2004, for examples of research drawing on non-Western data), including alcohol use (Benda, 2005; Caspi et al., 1994; Gibbs & Giever, 1995; Morris, Wood, & Dunaway, 2006; Piquero, Gibson, & Tibbetts, 2002) and drug abuse (Ribeaud & Eisner, 2006; Sorenson & Brownfield, 1995). However, the role of self-control as a connecting link in the relationship between child rearing and alcohol abuse remains to be determined. Although child rearing is generally found to be a statistically significant predictor of self-control (Hay, 2001; Nofziger, 2008; Unnever, Cullen, & Agnew, 2006), findings from a growing body of research bearing on the role of self-control as a mediator of the child rearing–misconduct link have been mixed (Gibbs, Giever, & Higgins, 2003; Hope, Harold, & Laura, 2003; Latimore, Tittle, & Grasmick, 2006; Morris, Wood, & Dunaway, 2007; Perrone, Sullivan, Pratt, & Margaryan, 2004; Pratt, Turner, & Piquero, 2004; Turner, Piquero, & Pratt, 2005; Vazsonyi & Belliston, 2007; Vazsonyi & Klanjšek, 2008; Wright & Beaver, 2005), with some studies reporting little or no mediating effect of self-control on the relationship between child rearing and various types of misconduct (Burt, Simons, & Simons, 2006; Hay, 2001; Latimore et al., 2006; Unnever et al., 2006). However, because most empirical assessments of the parenting–self-control–deviance link draw on samples from Western countries, the extent to which these findings are generalizable to other contexts is unclear.

It has also yet to be established whether gender differences in self-control presumably produced by differences in upbringing contribute to the gender gap in alcohol abuse. Although women appear to have higher levels of self-control than men (Burton, Cullen, Evans, Alarid, & Dunaway, 1998; Higgins & Tewksbury, 2006; but see Tittle, Ward, & Grasmick, 2003a), few studies have established that differences in parenting of boys and girls help explain this variation (Gibbs, Giever, & Martin, 1998; Higgins, 2004; Shekarkhar & Gibson, 2011). Whereas research bearing on the link between differential parental treatment and behavioral outcomes often reports no consistent differences in parenting of boys and girls (Shekarkhar & Gibson, 2011; for summaries see Lytton & Romney, 1991; Raley & Bianchi, 2006), some studies report that similar child-rearing practices lead to differential behavioral outcomes across gender (Eisenberg et al., 2001; Rothbaum & Weisz, 1994). This suggests that it may instead be the differences in children’s responses to similar forms of child rearing that explain gendered variation in levels of self-control. Finally, common findings in Western-based literature may not hold in other cultural contexts. For instance, the overwhelming involvement of mothers in workforce in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR; Bestuzhev-Lada & Igor, 2002) may have reduced or even eliminated gender differences in parenting and produced multiple generations of males and females with comparable levels of self-control.

Our study takes into consideration existing voids in the literature and examines the extent to which possible gender differences in parenting and self-control contribute to the gender gap in alcohol use in a unique and underresearched social context—Russian society. We assess three general (holding for males and females) and three gender-specific hypotheses. If these hypotheses are supported, our study will confirm that, regardless of social context, variations in childhood parenting strategies produce varying levels of self-control, which, in turn, determine the likelihood of excessive alcohol consumption in adulthood. Furthermore, supportive results will reaffirm the existence of gendered parenting strategies in Russian society and underscore their importance for the development of self-control in daughters and sons.

General Hypotheses

Hypothesis 1 (H1): Low self-control is associated with an increased likelihood of excessive alcohol use among men and women.

Hypothesis 2 (H2): Effective child rearing, including strong attachment of children to parents, careful monitoring, recognition, and correction of children’s misbehavior, is associated with stronger self-control and a lower likelihood of excessive alcohol use across gender line.

Hypothesis 3 (H3): Self-control fully mediates the relationship between child rearing and excessive alcohol use among males and females.

Gender-Specific Hypotheses

Hypothesis 4 (H4): Females exhibit higher levels of self-control than males.

Hypothesis 5 (H5): The gender gap in self-control is attributable to higher levels of supervision (including monitoring, recognition, and punishment) exerted by parents on daughters relative to sons.

Hypothesis 6 (H6): The gender gap in reported alcohol consumption can be explained by higher levels of self-control possessed by women in comparison with men.

Method

Participants

The data used in this study come from a household survey of adults residing in Nizhni Novgorod, Russia. Nizhni Novgorod, with its 1.3 million population, is one of the oldest and largest cities in Russia, closely following Moscow and St. Petersburg. Away from core governmental structures, this city has scarcer resources and higher poverty rates than the Russian capital, which makes it typical of lesser known Russian cities and towns (Kommersant Moscow, 2004).

The data collection procedures were carried out during December 2005 to January 2006. A two-stage stratified sampling procedure was used to construct the study sample. The sampling strategy included random selection of street routes within each of the city’s eight neighborhoods with a successive random selection of apartments. The questionnaire for the study was written in English and translated into Russian. A linguist fluent in Russian and English then performed a reverse translation to eliminate possible discrepancies in meaning. Only one eligible respondent (18 years or older) whose birthday was closest to the date of the interview was interviewed in each selected household. The gender composition of the final sample is 45% males and 55% females, which is consistent with the demographic structure of Nizhni Novgorod (Goskomstat, 2006). However, the mean respondent age in the sample is slightly older than the mean age of Nizhni Novgorod residents (46 years in the sample vs. 40 years in the general population). Therefore, to be cautious, we performed the analyses in younger and older age groups but found similar patterns of results across the age groups. In addition, we include age as a control variable in all models.

Measures

Alcohol consumption

The item tapping alcohol use asked respondents how often they consumed alcohol more than 3 times a week in the 3 years prior to the date of interview (Table 1); five response options ranged from 1 (never) to 5 (very often). Because Russians have a tendency to consume strong drinks (such as hard liquor) in drinking binges (Nemtsov, 2005), most people who responded with “often” or “very often” most likely reported heavy alcohol use.¹ To further investigate this assumption, we compared the frequency distribution of our alcohol use measure with a similar item from two recent surveys of 500 (2006) and 750 (2009) adult residents of Nizhni Novgorod. In these two surveys, respondents reported the frequency of consuming more than seven alcoholic beverages a week with each beverage defined as 17 ounces of beer, 2 ounces of vodka, or 8 ounces of wine. Across three surveys, including the one used in this study, approximately 22% of participants responded with “sometimes,” “often,” or “very often” (with about 7% reporting very high frequency of alcohol consumption), and about 55% responded with “never.” The striking closeness in percentages across years and three data sets once again confirms that regular drinkers in Russia tend to drink heavily, in drinking binges.

Table 1.

Bivariate Correlations and Descriptive Statistics (Full Sample = 440 cases, Female Subsample = 238 cases, and Male Subsample = 202 cases) Full Sample.

	LSC (cognitive)	LSC (behavioral)	Alcohol use	Attachment	Monitor-punishment	Family structure	Family SES	Age
LSC (behavioral)	0.32*
Alcohol use	0.29*	0.30*
Attachment	−0.13*	−0.09	−0.17*
Monitor-punishment	0.01	0.12*	−0.03	0.26*
Family structure	0.04	0.11*	0.01	−0.04	−0.02
Family SES	0.12*	0.13*	0.03	0.16*	0.14*	−0.14*
Age	−0.30*	−0.35*	−0.22*	0.15*	−0.17*	−0.05	−0.40*
Gender	−0.15*	−0.15*	−0.45*	0.01	−0.01	0.03	−0.10*	0.21*
Females
Range	−2.27-2.93	0.00-8.00	1.00-5.00	−6.94-1.37	−9.08-2.44	0.00-1.00	1.00-4.00	18-87
M	−0.13	3.29	1.26	0.02	−0.03	0.17	2.59	50.24
SD	0.99	1.72	0.62	2.00	2.36	0.36	0.7	18.62
Males
Range	−2.06-3.29	0.00-7.00	1.00-5.00	−5.37-1.37	−7.97-2.44	0.00-1.00	1.00-4.00	18-83
M	0.16	3.81	2.25	−0.02	0.04	0.15	2.72	42.87
SD	0.99	1.61	1.33	1.6	2.09	0.34	0.54	15.73
t test	−0.29	−0.53*	0.99*	0.04	0.07	−0.02	0.13*	−7.37*
Full sample
Range	−2.27-3.29	0.00-8.00	1.00-5.00	−6.94-1.37	−9.08-2.44	0.00-1.00	1.00-4.00	18-87
M	0.00	3.53	1.71	0.00	0.00	0.15	2.65	46.86
SD	1.00	1.68	1.12	1.92	2.24	0.35	0.63	17.72

Note: LSC = low self-control, SES = socioeconomic status.

p < .05.

We also reanalyzed our data with two alternative dependent measures of drinking where respondents were asked about (a) the likelihood of abusing alcohol (or drinking excessively) if they had a strong desire to get drunk (response options ranged from 1 = very unlikely to 4 = very likely), and (b) the frequency of drinking excessively in their lifetime (with response options ranging from 1 = never to 5 = very often). The measure of weekly drinking was statistically correlated with both items at .6 and .7, respectively, whereas the results of these alternative analyses were very similar to the findings based on reported weekly drinking. We use a natural logarithm of the variable to accommodate for the skewness of its frequency distribution.

Self-control

According to Hirschi and Gottfredson (1993), “the best indicators of self-control are . . . criminal, delinquent, and reckless acts,” and, therefore, behavioral measures of self-control are the most appropriate because they have greater construct validity (p. 49; see also Marcus, 2004). However, this approach is routinely criticized as being tautological (Akers, 1991) because it almost certainly guarantees that the relationship between self-control and deviant outcomes would be empirically confirmed. Cognitive-based measures are often used as an important alternative to behavioral manifestations of self-control in self-control studies (too many to cite in one article, but see Gibbs et al., 2003; Hay, 2001). We employ cognitive and behavioral measures of self-control to offset the possible weaknesses of one scale with the strengths of the other.

Cognitive-based scale

The cognitive-based scale consists of 23 (see Note 2) items tapping six dimensions of self-control—impulsivity (e.g., “I often act on the spur of the moment without stopping to think”), risk-seeking (“sometimes I will take a risk just for the fun of it”), self-centeredness (“if things I do upset people, it is their problem, not mine”), preference for physical activities (“I like to get out and do things more than I like to read and contemplate ideas”), inclination toward simple tasks (“when things get complicated, I tend to quit or withdraw”), and bad temper (“I lose my temper pretty easily”)—used by Grasmick, Tittle, Bursik, and Arneklev (1993). Following their study, we use four response options, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree), where higher scores indicate lower levels of self-control. We use the full cognitive scale as a measure of self-control to ensure maximum comparability of our results with previously conducted research. The final composite factor-based scale has a reliability score of .75 (Table 1).

Behavior-based scale

To avoid the issue of tautology in our behavior-based measure of self-control, we were careful not to include acts that could be categorized as criminal, focusing instead on behaviors generally seen as “imprudent” and, thus, reflective of low self-control. Our behavioral measure of self-control consists of nine imprudent behaviors: forgetting to take medications when sick, jaywalking, being late for work or appointments, failing to save money for “bad” days, getting oneself into debts that later prove difficult to repay, failing to take precautions not to get sick, smoking tobacco, eating desired foods with no regard for consequences, and engaging in risky sexual encounters. The responses for the behavioral scale ranged from 4 (very often) to 1 (never), with higher scores indicative of low self-control. The two variables for which agreement meant higher self-control (taking extra precautions to avoid getting sick and saving money for a “bad” day) were reverse coded. Because Hirschi and Gottfredson (1995) suggest that “the best operational measure of the propensity to offend is a count of the number of distinct problem behaviors . . . that is, a variety scale,” we opted for a variety index (pp. 133-134). In our study, the response options of “very often” and “often” were assigned a score of 1 and the two others (“rarely” and “never”) were assigned 0. Consistent with many other studies (Evans, Cullen, Burton, Dunaway, & Benson, 1997; Tittle, Ward, & Grasmick, 2003b), the reliability of the resulting scale is not high (.57). To be cautious, we repeated all analyses using various combinations of single items from this scale but found no substantial differences from the results reported here.³

Parenting

According to Gottfredson and Hirschi, effective child rearing includes parental monitoring of behavior, recognizing misbehavior, and punishing or correcting such behavior. We used the following questions to tap these techniques: (a) your arents carefully monitored your behavior when you were a child, (b) your parents commented on your behavior when you did something wrong, and (c) parents punished you for misbehavior. As all three of these elements are theorized to be impossible without strong ties of attachment between parents and a child, we also employed two measures of attachment: (a) your parents provided you with support and understanding throughout your childhood and adolescence and (b) you and your parents got along well. Response options ranged from 4 (strongly agree) to 1 (strongly disagree).

Exploratory factor analyses revealed that the supervision/correction strategies loaded highly on one factor, whereas the measures of attachment produced a separate factor. As emotional attachment between parents and children is theorized to be a precursor for successful supervision and correction of misbehavior, it also seems logical to keep these measures distinct.

According to Gottfredson and Hirschi, adequate child rearing encompasses supervision, recognition of misbehavior, and its punishment, where each element is a necessary building block in the process of the self-control development. Therefore, combining all three elements associated with adequate parenting in one scale is theoretically warranted. The attachment scale’s reliability score is .78, whereas the child-rearing (monitoring-punishment) scale has a reliability score of .58 (the individual components of the monitoring-punishment scale performed similar to the overall child-rearing measure). Both the measures are combinations of z scores.

Despite the abundance of research using retrospective reports of childhood upbringing (see, for example, Keller, 2008; Klein, O’Bryant, & Hopkins, 1996; Latimore et al., 2006; Teague, Mazerolle, Legosz, & Sanderson, 2008), such measures may be subject to recall decay. However, research suggests that retrospective reports of childhood events, including parental strategies, are reasonably accurate (see Brewin, Andres, & Gotlib, 1993; Hardt & Rutter, 2004). Reports of childhood upbringing and experiences also tend to converge in adult siblings (McRae & Costa, 1988) and are generally consistent over time in test–retest reliability studies (Cherlin & Horiuchi, 1980). In sum, accumulated empirical evidence indicates that retrospective reports of parental upbringing may be considered reasonable evaluations of childhood experiences. Pertinent to our study are also recall difficulties possibly experienced by heavy drinkers. Although we cannot fully eliminate the chance of some memory decay in heavy drinkers, we hope that in our survey, where procedures required interviews be terminated in the cases when respondents were obviously under influence, this possibility has been reduced to a minimum. Furthermore, controlling for lifetime alcohol abuse in two different sets of analyses—with reported weekly drinking and projected likelihood of excessive drinking as dependent variables—produced no substantive differences in findings. Therefore, it is unlikely that respondents’ memories of childhood upbringing were significantly impacted by habitual drinking.

Parental family characteristics

Because Gottfredson and Hirschi pay particular attention to family composition as a precursor to effective child rearing, all equations explaining self-control and frequent alcohol use include parental family structure, which we expect to be antecedent to the relationships between parenting, self-control, and alcohol use. Respondents were asked which arrangement best described the family that raised them. From the point of view of self-control theory, any family structure other than two biological parents is likely less effective in child rearing and, therefore, production of self-control. Therefore, a score of “0” was assigned to full families with both the biological parents, whereas all other options were assigned a score of “1” (see Note 4).

Finally, because parent–child relationships and parental monitoring may be compromised as a result of financial hardship in low socioeconomic status (SES) families, we also asked the respondents to rate economic status of the families they grew up in relative to other families at that time. Four options were provided, ranging from (4) “very good” to (1) “very poor.” Finally, all respondents reported their year of birth.

We decided against controlling for present SES or marital status of the respondent because these characteristics are said to be manifestations of low self-control acquired early in life.

Analysis

Our analyses proceed in several steps. First, using ordinary least squares (OLS) regression, we model the relationships between parenting, self-control, and alcohol abuse for the full sample and then separately for males and females. This procedure helps assess possible differences in the processes expected to affect self-control and deviance across males and females. To establish statistical significance of interactions between sex and relevant predictors, z tests (Paternoster, Brame, Mazerolle, & Piquero, 1998) are used. Our analyses are expected to produce several instances of mediation, which we investigate using the test of mediation by Preacher and Hayes (2008). All models assessing the effects of family processes and self-control on alcohol abuse were reanalyzed using ordinal logistic regression, but the results were identical to those obtained in OLS models. Finally, using a three-way gap decomposition rocedure (Jones & Kelley, 1984), we decompose the gender gap in alcohol abuse, which allows us to estimate the relative contribution of gender differences in self-control to the gender gap in alcohol abuse. Expectation–maximization (EM) algorithm was used to impute missing values (1% or less for every question used in the study).⁵

Results

Full Sample Hypotheses

Results reported in Table 2 are not supportive of our hypotheses as parental upbringing elements are not predictive of self-control, measured behaviorally or cognitively. Regression models predicting excessive alcohol use (Table 3) indicate that cognitive and behavioral measures of low self-control are associated with reported drinking. However, this relationship does not appear to be a function of parental monitoring, whereas a negative association between parental attachment and alcohol abuse persists (β = −.12) even after the introduction of self-control into the model. This indicates that self-control and parental attachment serve as independent predictors of alcohol use contradicting Gottfredson and Hirschi’s assumption regarding the origin of self-control.

Table 2.

Regression Coefficients Describing the Effects of Parenting and Family Background on Low Self-Control Controlling for Age.

				Females			Males
Full sample				Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3
Cognitively measured low self-control
Attachment			−0.09 (−0.05)			−0.05 (−0.03)			−0.14* (−0.09)
Monitor-punish		−0.04 (−0.02)	−0.01 (−0.01)		−0.01 (−0.01)	0.001 (0.001)		−0.06 (−0.03)	−0.02 (−0.01)
Family structure	0.02 (0.06)	0.02 (0.06)	0.02 (0.06)	0.06 (0.17)	0.06 (0.17)	0.06 (0.17)	−0.02 (−0.05)	−0.02 (−0.05)	−0.01 (−0.04)
Family SES	0.001 (0.002)	0.01 (0.01)	0.03 (0.04)	−0.01 (−0.01)	−0.01 (−0.01)	0.01 (0.01)	0.004 (0.01)	0.01 (0.01)	0.03 (0.05)
R²	.09	.08	.09	.10	.10	.10	.03	.03	.05
Behaviorally measured low self-control
Attachment			−0.06 (−0.06)			−0.03 (−0.03)			−0.12 (−0.12)
Monitor-punish		0.07 (0.05)	0.08 (0.06)		0.16*,^a (0.12)	0.17*,^a (0.12)		−0.06 (−0.04)	−0.02 (−0.02)
Family structure	0.09* (0.42)	0.09* (0.43)	0.09* (0.43)	0.09 (0.41)	0.10 (0.47)	0.10 (0.47)	0.10 (0.49)	0.11 (0.50)	0.11 (0.51)
Family SES	0.01 (0.03)	0.004 (0.01)	0.02 (0.05)	0.02 (0.05)	0.003 (0.01)	0.01 (0.03)	−0.02 (−0.05)	−0.01 (−0.04)	−0.002 (−0.01)
R²	.12	.13	.13	.12	.14	.14	.08	.08	.09

Note: SES = socioeconomic status. Unstandardized estimates are given in parentheses.

Statistically significant difference in effects (z score) by gender.

p < .05.s

Table 3.

Regression Coefficients Describing the Effects of Parenting, Self-Control, and Family Background on Drinking Controlling for Age.

	Full sample				Females				Males
	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4
LSC (behavioral)				0.26* (0.08)				0.19* (0.04)				0.29* (0.10)
LSC (cognitive)			0.24* (0.13)				0.15* (0.05)				0.25*,^a (0.15)
Attachment		−0.12* (−0.04)	−0.10* (−0.03)	−0.11* (−0.03)		−0.05 (−0.01)	−0.04 (−0.01)	−0.04 (−0.01)		−0.27*,^a (−0.10)	−0.24*,^a (−0.09)	−0.24*,^a (−0.09)
Monitor-punish	−0.07 (−0.02)	−0.03 (−0.01)	−0.03 (−0.01)	−0.06 (−0.01)	−0.11 (−0.02)	−0.10 (−0.01)	−0.10 (−0.01)	−0.13* (−0.02)	−0.03 (−0.01)	0.04 (0.01)	0.05 (0.01)	0.05 (0.01)
Family structure	−0.02 (−0.02)	−0.02 (−0.02)	−0.02 (−0.03)	−0.04 (−0.06)	0.04 (0.04)	0.04 (0.04)	0.03 (0.03)	0.02 (0.02)	−0.03 (−0.06)	−0.03 (−0.05)	−0.03 (−0.04)	−0.06 (−0.10)
Family SES	−0.06 (−0.05)	−0.03 (−0.03)	−0.04 (−0.03)	−0.04 (−0.03)	0.07 (0.03)	0.08 (0.04)	0.08 (0.04)	0.08 (0.04)	−0.21*,^a (−0.23)	−0.17*,^a (−0.05)	−0.18*,^a (−0.20)	−0.17*,^a (−0.19)
R ²	0.05	0.06	0.11	0.12	0.08	0.07	0.09	0.10	0.03	0.09	0.15	0.16

Note: Unstandardized estimates are given in parentheses LSC = low self-control.

Statistically significant difference in effects (z score) by gender.

p < .05.

Gender-specific hypotheses

We turn now to findings assessing gender differences in the hypothesized predictors of low self-control, its manifestation, and its relation to alcohol use. The results of t tests (Table 1) indicate that, consistent with expectations, males score higher on both behavioral and cognitive measures of low self-control. In addition, we confirm gender differences in reported alcohol use. However, we find no evidence of significant gender differences in parental attachment or monitoring/supervision. Still, it may not be the differences in the amount of parenting but in its effect that explain gender differences in self-control and deviance. We explore this possibility by estimating regression models separately for males and females and comparing coefficients (Tables 2 and 3).

The models for the cognitive measure of low self-control show that attachment does reduce cognitively measured low self-control for males, though the gender difference in coefficients is not statistically significant (Table 2) for either form of self-control. Moving to the behavioral measure of self-control, we observe no statistically significant effects for males. The only significant predictor of behavioral self-control among females is parental monitoring/punishment, but, counter to expectations, it is associated with an increase in low self-control. It may be that, consistent with some extant literature (Baumrind, 1991), females who perceive an excess of parental monitoring/punishment rebel with behaviors reflective of low self-control. However, inconsistent patterns of findings across the two measures of self-control prevent us from further theorizing.

Focusing on alcohol consumption (Table 3), we note that the effect of self-control on drinking is similar across sex, although for men the relationship between cognitively measured self-control and alcohol use appears slightly stronger. The inhibitory effect of attachment on low self-control appears to be moderately strong for males. But, because self-control does not mediate the relationship between parental attachment and alcohol use among men, our findings are not entirely supportive of the theory. Results for females, however, show no consistent effects of child-rearing variables on drinking. Although we observe the effect of monitoring/supervision on alcohol use (Model 4, Table 3), it is unlikely to be of much significance.

Decomposition of the gender gap in self-control and alcohol abuse

The results show that parenting techniques do not vary by sex and are rarely associated with self-control, which obviates the need to assess the contribution of differential parenting strategies to the gender gap in self-control. However, albeit moderate in strength, the association between low self-control and alcohol abuse persists in both gender groups. Therefore, we next examine whether gender differences in alcohol abuse can be explained by differences in self-control. The effects of all other predictors in the equation are fixed. We use the equation proposed by Jones and Kelley (1984):

{\bar{Y}}_{m} - {\bar{Y}}_{f} = (α_{m} - α_{f}) + \sum {\bar{X}}_{f} (β_{m} - β_{f}) + \sum β_{f} ({\bar{X}}_{m} - {\bar{X}}_{f}) + \sum (β_{m} - β_{f}) ({\bar{X}}_{m} - {\bar{X}}_{f}) .

In this equation, we partition the gender gap in alcohol abuse into explained and unexplained components. The unexplained component consists of differences in intercepts (or group membership), which constitutes the proportion of the gender gap unexplained by predictors in this equation, and differences in slopes (or effects of independent variables). The explained part is comprised of differences in levels (or means of predictors) and the interaction between differences in levels (means of independent variables) and gender differences in slopes (effects of predictors). The first component in the explained part shows the projected change in women’s mean level of alcohol abuse if women had the same level of self-control as men, whereas the second component can be identified as the projected change in women’s mean level of alcohol use if they had the same mean levels of self-control and the same slopes as men.

Our analyses show that differences in self-control levels contribute little to understanding the gender gap in alcohol abuse (Table 4). If men and women reported equal levels of self-control (measured cognitively or behaviorally), the gender gap in drinking would be reduced by 0.02 (0.48-0.02), which constitutes approximately a 4% reduction. In turn, the interaction component of the equation indicates that if women had male mean levels of self-control as well as male slopes, the reduction in the gender gap in alcohol abuse would constitute approximately 6% (0.48-0.03). Overall, these results suggest that men and women with similar levels of self-control consume alcohol at different rates and, therefore, differences in self-control are unlikely to be the cause of gender differences in drinking among Russians.

Table 4.

Decomposition of the Gender Gap in Alcohol Abuse.

	Slopes	Levels	Levels × Slopes	Observed gender gap
Self-control (cognitive measure)	−0.01	0.02	0.03
Controls	−0.47	0.03	−0.05	0.48
Constant	0.93
Total	0.45*	0.05*	−0.02
Self-control (behavior-based measure)	0.21	0.02	0.03
Controls	−0.42	0.03	−0.05	0.48
Intercept	0.66
Total	0.45*	0.05*	−0.02

p < .05.

Discussion

In this study, we examined the relationships among childhood family characteristics, parenting, self-control, and alcohol use in Russia with an eye to the possible differences across gender. Our hypotheses received mixed support. On one hand, as expected, males appear to have lower levels of self-control and consume more alcohol than women. On the other hand, consistent with some previous studies (Gibbs et al., 1998; also see Lytton & Romney, 1991) but contrary to Gottfredson and Hirschi’s reasoning, we observe no statistically significant differences in parental attachment or supervision and punishment of daughters relative to sons. Adding to the extant evidence using Western data, our findings also show that self-control is moderately effective in explaining frequent alcohol use in males and females (cf. Benda, 2005; Morris et al., 2006; Piquero et al., 2002), but the gender gap in self-control contributes little to the gender gap in alcohol use. Finally, unlike some of the past studies (Hay, 2001; Nofziger, 2008; Vazsonyi & Belliston, 2007; but see Morris et al., 2007), our study failed to find the origins of self-control in childhood upbringing experiences (but see Shekarkhar & Gibson, 2011, for similar findings).

The results of our study may have several implications for self-control theory and, more generally, for future theorizing about the nature of within- and across-gender differences in heavy drinking in the cultural locales such as Russia. On one hand, the development and “maintenance” of self-control over the life course may be affected by macro-level economic and cultural forces. Perhaps, our failure to find a consistent link between parenting and self-control across males and females indicates that self-control is less stable than Gottfredson and Hirschi would suggest. Although many families may have socialized their children to have high levels of self-control in childhood or even in adolescence, the widespread demoralization and financial stress that have pervaded the Russian context in the past two decades likely have temporarily depleted individuals’ self-control resources (see also Muraven & Baumeister, 2000; Muraven, Pogarsky, & Shmueli, 2006). The weakening of self-control, then, would occur independent of early parental socialization. This argument casts some doubts on the assumption of stability of self-control over life course as do findings of several recent studies (see, for examples, Burt et al., 2006; Hay & Forrest, 2006; Turner & Piquero, 2002). In a similar vein, self-control could be a product of a long-term, and possibly multifaceted, learning process that extends far beyond one’s childhood (see also Akers, 1985), and one that is affected by factors that extend well beyond the immediate family context. If so, familial socialization in early years could be necessary but not sufficient precondition for development of adequate self-control.

On the other hand, the observed gender gap in alcohol consumption despite the minimal role of self-control differences could be linked to culture-specific definitions of gender-appropriate behavior, which tend to be instilled by families in the course of early socialization and by society, more generally, in adulthood (Van Gundy et al., 2005). For instance, heavy drinking may be perceived as unfeminine and its use could be restricted in female peer circles, whereas Russian males could be more likely to associate alcohol use (and abuse) with masculinity and be more exposed to heavy drinking among same-sex peers.

Although our findings aid the development of research linking gender differences in deviance to gendered variations in self-control and parental upbringing, several cautionary notes are in order. First, as any other self-report data, our data may be subject to exaggeration, telescoping, and purposeful withholding of information by respondents. However, possibly because no formal penalties exist for alcohol abuse in Russia, more than 30% of the sample acknowledges the possibility of getting drunk on occasion, and more than 21% of the sample report to be drinking more than 3 times a week or drinking excessively in the past. Therefore, we feel confident that our data are a reasonable reflection of the propensity to drink among Russians. Second, our measures of parenting, though faithful to self-control theory and in line with previous studies, might not capture the whole variety of child-rearing techniques that parents use over time. Furthermore, the mediating role of self-control in the relationship between parenting and alternative types of deviance in non-Western contexts remains to be investigated. This, along with a task of including more comprehensive measures of parenting, should be the focus of future research.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

References

Akers

R. L.

(1985). Deviant behavior: A social learning approach. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Akers

R. L.

(1991). Self-control as a general theory of crime. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 7, 201-211.

Antonaccio

Tittle

C. R.

(2008). “Morality, self-control, and crime.” Criminology, 46, 801-832.

Barnes

G. M.

Farrell

M. P.

(1992). Parental support and control as predictors of adolescent drinking, delinquency, and related problem behaviors. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54, 763-776.

Baumrind

(1991). The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance use. Journal of Early Adolescence, 11, 45-95.

Benda

(2005). The robustness of self-control in relation to form of delinquency. Youth & Society, 36, 418-444.

Bestuzhev-Lada Igor

(2002). “Sotsialnye problem zaniatosti v Rossii.” Sotsiologicheskie Issledovaniya, 12, 1-17.

Bobak

McKee

Rose

Marmot

(1999). Alcohol consumption in a national sample of the Russian population. Addiction, 94, 857-866.

Brewin

C. R.

Andres

Gotlib

I. H.

(1993). Psychopathology and early experience: A reappraisal of retrospective reports. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 82-98.

10.

Burt

C. H.

Simons

R. L.

Simons

L. G.

(2006). A longitudinal test of the effects of parenting and stability of self-control: Negative evidence for the general theory of crime. Criminology, 44, 353-396.

11.

Burton

V. S.

Jr. Cullen

F. T.

Evans

T. D.

Alarid

L. F.

Dunaway

R. G.

(1998). Gender, self-control and crime. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 35, 123-147.

12.

Carlson

Vågerö

(1998). The social pattern of heavy drinking in Russia during the transition: Evidence from Taganrog, 1993. European Journal of Public Health, 8, 280-285.

13.

Caspi

Moffitt

T. E.

Newman

D. L.

Silva

P. A.

(1996). Behavioural observations at age 3 predict adult psychiatric disorders: Longitudinal evidence from a birth cohort. Archives of General Psychiatry, 53, 1033-1039.

14.

Caspi

Moffitt

T. E.

Silva

P. A.

Stouthamer-Loeber

Krueger

R. F.

Schmutte

P. S.

(1994). Are some people crime-prone? Replications of the personality-crime relationship across countries, genders, races, and methods. Criminology, 32, 163-195.

15.

Cherlin

Horiuchi

(1980). Retrospective reports of family structure: A methodological assessment. Sociological Methods & Research, 8, 454-469.

16.

Eisenberg

Losoya

Fabes

R. A.

Guthrie

I. K.

Reiser

Murphy

B. S.

(2001). Parental socialization of children’s dysregulated expression of emotion and externalizing problems. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 183-205.

17.

Evans

T. D.

Cullen

F. T.

Burton

V. S.

Jr. Dunaway

R. G.

Benson

M. L.

(1997). The social consequences of self-control: Testing the general theory of crime. Criminology, 35, 475-504.

18.

Gibbs

J. J.

Giever

(1995). Self-control and its manifestations among university students: An empirical test of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory. Justice Quarterly, 12, 231-255.

19.

Gibbs

J. J.

Giever

Higgins

G. F.

(2003). A test of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory using structural equation modeling. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30, 441-457.

20.

Gibbs

J. J.

Giever

Martin

J. S.

(1998). Parental management and self-control: An empirical test of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 35, 40-70.

21.

Golov

A. A.

(2008). Moral constraints in Russia and the U.S. Available from www.levada.ru

22.

Goskomstat. (2006). Rates of employment in the Russian population. Moscow, Russia: Federal’naia Sluzhba Gosudarstvennoy Statistiki. Available from www.gks.ru

23.

Gottfredson

M. R.

Hirschi

(1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

24.

Grasmick

H. G.

Tittle

C. R.

Bursik

R. J.

Jr. Arneklev

B. J.

(1993). Testing the core empirical implications of Gottfredson’s and Hirschi’s general theory of crime. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 30, 5-29.

25.

Hardt

Rutter

(2004). Validity of adult retrospective reports of adverse childhood experiences: Review of the evidence. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 260-273.

26.

Hay

(2001). Parenting, self-control, and delinquency: A test of self-control theory. Criminology, 39, 707-736.

27.

Hay

Forrest

(2006). The development of self-control: Examining self-control theory’s stability thesis. Criminology, 44, 739-774.

28.

Heath

A. C.

Madden

P. A. F.

Bucholz

K. K.

Dinwiddie

S. H.

Slutske

W. H.

Bierut

L. J.

(1999). Genetic differences in alcohol sensitivity and the inheritance of alcoholism risk. Psychological Medicine, 29, 1069-1081.

29.

Higgins

G. E.

(2004). Gender and self-control theory: Are there differences in the measures and the theory’s causal model? Criminal Justice Studies: A Critical Journal of Crime, Law and Society, 17, 33-56.

30.

Higgins

G. E.

Tewksbury

(2006). Sex and self-control theory: The measures and causal model may be different. Youth & Society, 37, 479-503.

31.

Hirschi

Gottfredson

M. R.

(1993). Commentary: Testing the general theory of crime. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 30, 47-54.

32.

Hirschi

Gottfredson

M. R.

(1995). Control theory and the life-course perspective. Studies on Crime and Crime Prevention, 4, 131-142.

33.

Hope

Trina L.

Harold

G. Grasmick

Laura

J. Pointon

(2003). The Family in Gottfredson and Hirschi’s General Theory of Crime: Structure, Parenting, and Self-Control. Sociological Focus, 36(4), 291-311.

34.

Huselid

R. F.

Cooper

L. M.

(1992). Gender roles as mediators of sex differences in adolescent alcohol use and abuse. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 33, 348-362.

35.

Hwang

Akers

R. L.

(2003). Substance use by Korean adolescents: A cross-cultural test of social learning, social bonding, and self-control theories. In Akers

R. L.

Jensen

G. F.

(Eds.), Social learning theory and the explanation of crime (pp. 39-63). New Brunswick, NJ: Transactions.

36.

Jones

F. L.

Kelley

(1984). Decomposing differences between groups: A cautionary note on measuring discrimination. Sociological Methods and Research, 12, 323-343.

37.

Keller

(2008). On the development of regulatory focus: The role of parenting styles. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 354-364.

38.

Klein

H. A.

O’Bryant

Hopkins

H. R.

(1996). Recalled parental authority style and self-perception in college men and women. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 157, 5-17.

39.

Klugman

Braithwaite

(1998). Poverty in Russia during the transition: An overview. World Bank Research Observer, 13, 37-58.

40.

Kommersant Moscow. (2004). Nizhny Novgorod Region. Available from http://www.kommersant.com

41.

Latimore

L. T.

Tittle

C. R.

Grasmick

H. G.

(2006). Childrearing, self-control, and crime: Additional evidence. Sociological Inquiry, 76, 343-371.

42.

Lytton

Romney

D. M.

(1991). Parents’ sex-differentiated socialization of boys and girls: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 267-296.

43.

Marcus

(2004). Self-control in the general theory of crime: Theoretical implications of a measurement problem. Theoretical Criminology, 8, 33-55.

44.

McKee

(1999). Alcohol in Russia. Alcohol and Alcoholism, 34, 824-829.

45.

McRae

R. R.

Costa

P. T.

(1988). Recalled parent-child relations and adult personality. Journal of Personality, 56, 417-434.

46.

Morris

G. D.

Wood

P. B.

Dunaway

R. G.

(2006). Self-control and Native American substance use: Testing the cultural invariance thesis. Crime & Delinquency, 52, 572-598.

47.

Morris

G. D.

Wood

P. B.

Dunaway

R. G.

(2007). Testing the cultural invariance of parenting and self-control as predictors of American Indian delinquency. Western Criminology Review, 8, 32-47.

48.

Muraven

Baumeister

R. F.

(2000). Self-regulation and depletion of limited resources: Does self-control resemble a muscle? Psychological Bulletin, 126, 247-259.

49.

Muraven

Pogarsky

Shmueli

(2006). Self-control depletion and the general theory of crime. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 22, 263-277.

50.

Nemtsov

A. V.

(2005). Russia: Alcohol yesterday and today. Addiction, 100, 146-149.

51.

Nofziger

(2008). The cause of low self-control: The influence of maternal self-control. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 45, 191-224.

52.

Paternoster

Brame

Mazerolle

Piquero

(1998). Using the correct statistical test for the equality of regression coefficients. Criminology, 36, 859-866.

53.

Perrone

Sullivan

Pratt

T. C.

Margaryan

(2004). Parental efficacy, self-control, and delinquent behavior: A Test of a general theory of crime on a nationally-representative sample. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 48, 298-312.

54.

Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. (2006). Generation Next Survey. Sept. 6-Oct. 2. Available from http://people-press.org

55.

Piquero

A. R.

Gibson

Tibbetts

(2002). Does self-control account for the relationship between binge drinking and alcohol-related behaviours? Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 12, 135-154.

56.

Pratt

T. C.

Cullen

F. T.

(2000). The empirical status of Gottfredson’s and Hirschi’s general theory of crime: A meta-analysis. Criminology, 38, 931-964.

57.

Pratt

T. C.

Turner

M. G.

Piquero

A. R.

(2004). Parental socialization and community context: A longitudinal analysis of the structural sources of low self-control. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 41, 219-243.

58.

Preacher

K. J.

Hayes

A. F.

(2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in simple and multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 879-891.

59.

Raley

Bianchi

(2006). Gender of children: Effects on children, parents and family processes. Annual Review of Sociology, 32, 401-421.

60.

Ribeaud

Eisner

(2006). The “drug-crime link” from a self-control perspective. European Journal of Criminology, 3, 33-67.

61.

Rollins

B. C.

Thomas

D. L.

(1979). Parental support, power, and control techniques in the socialization of children. In Burr

W. R.

Hill

Nye

F. I.

Reiss

I. L.

(Eds.), Contemporary theories about the family (pp. 317-364). New York, NY: Free Press.

62.

Rothbaum

Weisz

J. R.

(1994). Parental caregiving and child externalizing behavior in nonclinical samples: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 55-74.

63.

Shekarkhar

Gibson

C. L.

(2011). Gender, self-control, and offending behavior among Latino youth. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 27, 63-80.

64.

Sorenson

A. M.

Brownfield

(1995). Adolescent drug use and a general theory of crime: An analysis of a theoretical integration. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 37, 19-37.

65.

Spoth

Neppl

Goldberg-Lillehoj

Jung

Ramisetty-Mikler

(2006). Gender related quality of parent-child interactions and early adolescent problem behaviors. Journal of Family Issues, 27, 826-849.

66.

Teague

Mazerolle

Legosz

Sanderson

(2008). Linking childhood exposure to physical abuse and adult offending: Examining mediating factors and gendered relationships. Justice Quarterly, 2, 313-348.

67.

Tittle

C. R.

Ward

D. A.

Grasmick

H. G.

(2003a). Gender, age, and crime/deviance: A challenge to self-control theory. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 20, 426-453.

68.

Tittle

C. R.

Ward

D. A.

Grasmick

H. G.

(2003b). Self-control and crime/deviance: Cognitive vs. behavioral measures. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 19, 333-348.

69.

Turner

M. G.

Piquero

A. R.

(2002). The stability of self-control. Journal of Criminal Justice, 30, 457-471.

70.

Turner

M. G.

Piquero

A. R.

Pratt

(2005). The school context as a source of self-control. Journal of Criminal Justice, 33, 327-339.

71.

Unnever

J. D.

Cullen

F. T.

Agnew

(2006). Why is “bad” parenting criminogenic? Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 4, 3-33.

72.

Van Gundy

Schieman

Kelley

M. S.

Rebellon

C. J.

(2005). Gender role orientations and alcohol use among Moscow and Toronto adults. Social Science & Medicine, 61, 2317-2330.

73.

Vazsonyi

A. T.

Belliston

L. M.

(2007). The family, low self-control, and deviance: A cross-cultural and cross-national test of self-control theory. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, 505-530.

74.

Vazsonyi

A. T.

Clifford Wittekind

J. E.

Belliston

L. M.

Van Loh

T. D.

(2004). Extending the general theory of crime to “the East.” Low self-control in Japanese late adolescents. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 20, 189-216.

75.

Vazsonyi

A. T.

Klanjšek

(2008). A test of self-control theory across different socioeconomic strata. Justice Quarterly, 25, 101-131.

76.

Wilson

J. Q.

Herrnstein

(1985). Crime and human nature: The definitive study of the causes of crime. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

77.

Wood

P. B.

Pfefferbaum

Arneklev

(1993). Risk-taking and self-control: Social psychological correlates of delinquency. Journal of Crime and Justice, 16, 111-130.

78.

World Health Organization. (2006). Interpersonal violence and alcohol in the Russian Federation. Policy Briefing. WHO Regional Office for Europe. Available electronically from www.who.int

79.

Wright

J. P.

Beaver

K. M.

(2005). Do parents matter in creating self-control in their children? A genetically informed test of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s theory of low self-control. Criminology, 43, 1169-1202.